I'm sorry, but if they worked to get where they were and are qualified, they should have the right to have those jobs. Don't post speculation that they "wont do their job" as fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Thanks for pointing out the thing on Michelle, I had forgotten about her being swooned over too. And before you try to smear Newsbusters as usual, the article actually sources the news agencies they are accusing of conflict of interest. If you'll note I said "crush on the Obamas," or are you saying Michelle isn't married to Barack?

... T-thanks for pointing out?

YOU WERE THE ONE WHO POSTED IT.

Thank you yet again for proving that you don't even read your own sources. And you wonder why people get angry at you...

And as far as the Obama's go, what you posted was a damn blog. Stop it with the damn blogs, or I will report you for spam. Its even better that you are posting this in a thread about credibility in wikipedia.

I'm sorry to open this door up for you, but women have erotic thoughts as well. The media has little control over what gets to a woman, and if that happens to be Barack for some of them then I wont judge. There are worse people they could be swooning over anyway, like some drugged out celebrity singer.

And, considering that is a blog, I could care less what she says. Most of the people she quotes are people who wrote to her due to the e-mail inquiry she sent out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Because it shows your sources have no credibility at all it's a red herring... You have a strange definition of what a red herring is.

Do you even know what a Red Herring is? Because you make an awful lot of them.

This is a thread on Wikipedia and you find it necessary to bring in a topic of random women having fantasies about Obama to distract from the fact you don't have any other argument but smears.

You present blogs from journalists, not even actual articles, as evidence of this. That is a Red Herring. If you don't like it, stop making them or learn the fallacies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Oh so now you finally, admit MSNBC isn't a credible source, okay so next I'm going to have to find enough sourcing and stuff that maybe you'll also admit Fox News is a credible source. Seriously though, Ann Coulter is more credible than some of the people at MSNBC.

Haha

This is the exact reason I left Kavars when you were posting. You completely fail to read posts. Completely and utterly fail. I have mentioned that I think MSNBC is a biased source for months.

Fox News is on the same level as MSNBC, as I said if you had read my entire post. Fox is biased towards its own opinions, and many of its pundits are down right jackasses like they are on MSNBC.

And no, Ann Coulter has no credibility. At all. She is a racist sexist and has an admitted biased. Nice try though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Well you know someone got sued for making a phony video and releasing it to try to make it look like John Gibson from Fox News was a racist? That kind of smear campaign is relatively common by the left, but the reason this resulted in a lawsuit is because it was a reporter from an MSNBC subsidiary.

Again with the MSNBC... Why do you think they represent the entire left?

Does everything every Fox News pundit has ever said represent the entire right? No, it doesn't.

And the best part is, you just proved the VERY THING YOU RESPONDED TO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by True_Avery

also find it interesting that whenever someone calls you on Fox News, you throw MSNBC out as a strawman, never actually taking on the Fox News part of the argument. MSNBC is biased and we can both agree on that, so I don't need you continuously pointlessly pointing it out when it doesn't need to be.

Fact is, wikipedia is slightly leftist in general. Is it because the majority of users are under 30, a crowd that has proven to the the largest supporters of both Barack Obama and the DNC in general, or is it just the general atmosphere surrounding the resource?

Also I agree with you that MSNBC has totally gone left over the course of the last year. Save for these two:

^ I agree. It almost seems hypocritical that someone can say MSNBC is not credible due to its bias, but Fox is?

I don't watch Fox intentionally, but since one side of my family is a bunch of Conservatives, I see more than I want to. I find Fox News annoyingly conservative. I can't stand many of their talking heads either. O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity...that one chick.

Okay the problem with both your arguments is that Obama in his own words wants to redistribute wealth. I've heard the radio conversation, he has made similar comments over the course of his life so some of the examples your News Hounds site are listing, Fox News can actually back up what they are saying and it kinda makes News Hounds look like a bunch of idiots. Reason I know about those things is because of the fact I'm the one that brought up these issues on Kavars in the past.

Also two of the people you're giving as examples are commentators and one could argue entertainers, not news anchors.

Also two of the people you're giving as examples are commentators and one could argue entertainers, not news anchors.

Not to sound like a jerk, but please argue that. Joe Scarborough is a former republican congressman and Pat Buchanan is a former senior adviser to Nixon, Ford, and Reagan and has run for President numerous times.

Not to get off topic here, but you said President Obama said in his own words that he wanted to "redistribute wealth" when he said he wanted to "spread the wealth around". I agree that the President's statement completely suggests a redistribution of wealth, I just do not see how this play's into our debate surrounding wikipedia? Are you suggesting that Wikipedia's staff has deleted these arguments to "clean up" their image of Obama. While it is very shady that they did this, I would argue that this has been a rallying cry against Mr. Obama by conservatives since the hard iron days of the 2008 campaign and that the Wikipedia staff is deleting it because it is deemed too far right for their sense of "balance".

Similarly, if it was written about John McCain his involvement with the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980s, I sincerely believe that such a repeated and brash additions or insertions would be removed by wikipedia because it would tip the balance too far left.

Not to sound like a jerk, but please argue that. Joe Scarborough is a former republican congressman and Pat Buchanan is a former senior adviser to Nixon, Ford, and Reagan and has run for President numerous times.

I generally don't care I boycott MSNBC with a passion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoxStar

Not to get off topic here, but you said President Obama said in his own words that he wanted to "redistribute wealth" when he said he wanted to "spread the wealth around". I agree that the President's statement completely suggests a redistribution of wealth, I just do not see how this play's into our debate surrounding wikipedia? Are you suggesting that Wikipedia's staff has deleted these arguments to "clean up" their image of Obama. While it is very shady that they did this, I would argue that this has been a rallying cry against Mr. Obama by conservatives since the hard iron days of the 2008 campaign and that the Wikipedia staff is deleting it because it is deemed too far right for their sense of "balance".

First on the income redistribution, which time are referring to, the one with Joe the Plumber, the one in the radio tape (which if I remember correctly was from 2003), what?

Second, that excuse for wikipedia removing stuff in this case doesn't fly because even the sources were left wing and they deleted it anyways. See my Newsbusters article link.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoxStar

Similarly, if it was written about John McCain his involvement with the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980s, I sincerely believe that such a repeated and brash additions or insertions would be removed by wikipedia because it would tip the balance too far left.

Well if you bet me money on that you should start paying because it would take the media embarassing them on it for them to do that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoxStar

Also you failed to address my original points before my lovely photos

You mean:

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoxStar

Fact is, wikipedia is slightly leftist in general. Is it because the majority of users are under 30, a crowd that has proven to the the largest supporters of both Barack Obama and the DNC in general, or is it just the general atmosphere surrounding the resource?

Which brings us back to why I believe that the education system is out to indoctrinate the youth into the Democrat party and the far left agenda. Again though the general members don't matter one bit, we're talking the administrative staff because they banned the individual whom made the correction and put stuff back in (the irony is that individual used msnbc (which you also agree is hard left) as one of their sources and they still banned the individual).

Which brings us back to why I believe that the education system is out to indoctrinate the youth into the Democrat party and the far left agenda.

BS; young adults have always been usually liberal. When the 26th Amendment was proposed to lower the voting age limit it was criticized, because of the fact that most young people were liberals, and therefore, a there would be a supposed inbalance of voting power. That was over 35 years ago, when Nixon, a Republican, was president, and he signed into law.

The notion isn't new, but you're taking it to sensationalist boundaries that mirror McCarthyism.

BS; young adults have always been usually liberal. When the 26th Amendment was proposed to lower the voting age limit it was criticized, because of the fact that most young people were liberals, and therefore, a there would be a supposed inbalance of voting power. That was over 35 years ago, when Nixon, a Republican, was president, and he signed into law.

The notion isn't new, but you're taking it to sensationalist boundaries that mirror McCarthyism.

It's called I've actually seen the literary materials that are required reading for people being taught to become teachers.